<?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: Christians Sue for Right To Be Intolerant</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/</link>
	<description>Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:22:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49144</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 03:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49144</guid>
		<description>&quot;It’s straight-up half-assed pseudo-religion.&quot;

	Pseudo is an apt description for what you consider accurate source material.

	Walker... The &lt;b&gt;complete statement&lt;/b&gt; reads as follows:

	&quot;The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, &#38;#38; they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: &#38;#38; enough too in their opinion, &#38;#38; this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . .&quot;


	Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:

	The correct statement...
	        &lt;b&gt;[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly&lt;/b&gt;. 8

	Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

	Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;never&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

	        Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

	Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

	By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate &lt;b&gt;no&lt;/b&gt; social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

	8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.

	9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.

	10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.

	Now given the last two paragraphs and Jefferson&#039;s understanding and affirmation of &quot;inalienable God-given rights&quot;, how can his views be considered part of a secular political philosophy?

	Walker was correct in stating, Jefferson had a complex view of religion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It’s straight-up half-assed pseudo-religion.&#8221;</p>
<p>	Pseudo is an apt description for what you consider accurate source material.</p>
<p>	Walker&#8230; The <b>complete statement</b> reads as follows:</p>
<p>	&#8220;The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, &#38;#38;#38; they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: &#38;#38;#38; enough too in their opinion, &#38;#38;#38; this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . .&#8221;</p>
<p>	Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted <b><i>only</i></b> to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination-a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush:</p>
<p>	The correct statement&#8230;<br />
	        <b>[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly</b>. 8</p>
<p>	Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.</p>
<p>	Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would <b><i>never</i></b> be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:</p>
<p>	        Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9</p>
<p>	Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.</p>
<p>	By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” 10 That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate <b>no</b> social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.</p>
<p>	8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800.</p>
<p>	9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802.</p>
<p>	10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207.</p>
<p>	Now given the last two paragraphs and Jefferson&#8217;s understanding and affirmation of &#8220;inalienable God-given rights&#8221;, how can his views be considered part of a secular political philosophy?</p>
<p>	Walker was correct in stating, Jefferson had a complex view of religion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cross Blogging</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49143</link>
		<dc:creator>Cross Blogging</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:31:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49143</guid>
		<description>[...] Why is it Christians have to sue for the right to free speech when Nazi&#38;#8217;s and the KKK are defended by the ACLU? This student at Georgia Tech has had enough and is now suing to be able to speak out about here religous beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why is it Christians have to sue for the right to free speech when Nazi&#38;#38;#8217;s and the KKK are defended by the ACLU? This student at Georgia Tech has had enough and is now suing to be able to speak out about here religous beliefs that homosexuality is wrong. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CaptainRational</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49142</link>
		<dc:creator>CaptainRational</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49142</guid>
		<description>http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

	Jeff was a deist. It&#039;s straight-up half-assed pseudo-religion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm</a></p>
<p>	Jeff was a deist. It&#8217;s straight-up half-assed pseudo-religion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jimmy</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49141</link>
		<dc:creator>jimmy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49141</guid>
		<description>I think that personally I&#039;m going to let this horse die, but I would really like to bring up a couple last things.  I have no idea why anyone discusses the religions of the founding fathers.  I can&#039;t see how that could mean less.  Just like the Catholic Church says evolution belongs in school, not Intelligent Design, some of the biggest supporters of strong separation between church and state in the 18th century were evangelicals who felt repressed by other more dominate sects of Christian belief.  All the way back to Jefferson&#039;s presidency conservative religious figures had said that a vote for him was a vote against god, and that he was the leader of a war on religion in America.  Sound familiar?  I can understand that religious people feel threatened when their beliefs are challenged by proxy by people like me who want the government to govern man, and god to govern man&#039;s soul; but they should really realize that the government is a tool for order, not a tool for salvation.

		The only way we can all hold our separate beliefs and live together peacefully is to agree to disagree about religion and not meddle in each-other&#039;s affairs with god.  Even the staunchest supporters of religion in government here must be able to see logic in that, assuming they can even admit other religions have the right to exist.  The official indoctrination of a single religion into government puts us onto the road to becoming Afghanistan, ready to hang non-believers just for not believing something else.  It may be a long road, but why even start walking it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that personally I&#8217;m going to let this horse die, but I would really like to bring up a couple last things.  I have no idea why anyone discusses the religions of the founding fathers.  I can&#8217;t see how that could mean less.  Just like the Catholic Church says evolution belongs in school, not Intelligent Design, some of the biggest supporters of strong separation between church and state in the 18th century were evangelicals who felt repressed by other more dominate sects of Christian belief.  All the way back to Jefferson&#8217;s presidency conservative religious figures had said that a vote for him was a vote against god, and that he was the leader of a war on religion in America.  Sound familiar?  I can understand that religious people feel threatened when their beliefs are challenged by proxy by people like me who want the government to govern man, and god to govern man&#8217;s soul; but they should really realize that the government is a tool for order, not a tool for salvation.</p>
<p>		The only way we can all hold our separate beliefs and live together peacefully is to agree to disagree about religion and not meddle in each-other&#8217;s affairs with god.  Even the staunchest supporters of religion in government here must be able to see logic in that, assuming they can even admit other religions have the right to exist.  The official indoctrination of a single religion into government puts us onto the road to becoming Afghanistan, ready to hang non-believers just for not believing something else.  It may be a long road, but why even start walking it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49140</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49140</guid>
		<description>While attending Church does not make one a Christian, Thomas Jefferson was most certainly nowhere close to being athiest.  Wishful thinking and revisionism at its best by the left.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While attending Church does not make one a Christian, Thomas Jefferson was most certainly nowhere close to being athiest.  Wishful thinking and revisionism at its best by the left.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loboinok</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49139</link>
		<dc:creator>loboinok</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49139</guid>
		<description>&quot;T-Jeff is the closest thing we’ve ever had to an atheist president,&quot;

	Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President [5] and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. [6] Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.


	U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” [7] Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” [8] She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” [9] Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” [10] Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. [11]


	NOTES

	[5] Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.

	[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke &#38;#38; Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

	[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).

	[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

	[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

	[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).

	[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.



	Thomas Jefferson
	        And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11

	Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

	11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.


	The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

	(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

	I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

	(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

	I wouldn&#039;t describe him as pious or devout but I certainly wouldn&#039;t describe him as &quot;the closest thing to an atheist president&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;T-Jeff is the closest thing we’ve ever had to an atheist president,&#8221;</p>
<p>	Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President [5] and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. [6] Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.</p>
<p>	U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” [7] Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” [8] She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” [9] Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” [10] Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. [11]</p>
<p>	NOTES</p>
<p>	[5] Bishop Claggett’s (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.</p>
<p>	[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke &#38;#38;#38; Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.</p>
<p>	[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).</p>
<p>	[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.</p>
<p>	[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.</p>
<p>	[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).</p>
<p>	[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.</p>
<p>	Thomas Jefferson<br />
	        And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? 11</p>
<p>	Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.</p>
<p>	11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.</p>
<p>	The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.</p>
<p>	(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)</p>
<p>	I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.</p>
<p>	(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)</p>
<p>	I wouldn&#8217;t describe him as pious or devout but I certainly wouldn&#8217;t describe him as &#8220;the closest thing to an atheist president&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Carlton -- alias "Jack Lewis"</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49138</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Carlton -- alias "Jack Lewis"</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49138</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Why I homeschool: reason #4,564,231&lt;/strong&gt;
	From WorldNetDaily... An 8th-grade science teacher in Alabama who also is running as a Democrat for a seat in the...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Why I homeschool: reason #4,564,231</strong><br />
	From WorldNetDaily&#8230; An 8th-grade science teacher in Alabama who also is running as a Democrat for a seat in the&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chez Diva &#38;#38;#187; Angry Females - target chez Diva</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49115</link>
		<dc:creator>chez Diva &#38;#38;#187; Angry Females - target chez Diva</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49115</guid>
		<description>[...] Stop the ACLU has an interesting perspective on the free speech aspect of Ms. Malhotra&#38;#8217;s case.  I surmise from what he wrote that she has every right to be intolerant just as nubian has every right to hate the USA and have it immortilized on her blog as &#38;#8220;amerikkka&#38;#8221;.    Permalink TrackBack [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Stop the ACLU has an interesting perspective on the free speech aspect of Ms. Malhotra&#38;#38;#8217;s case.  I surmise from what he wrote that she has every right to be intolerant just as nubian has every right to hate the USA and have it immortilized on her blog as &#38;#38;#8220;amerikkka&#38;#38;#8221;.    Permalink TrackBack [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leaning Straight Up</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49116</link>
		<dc:creator>Leaning Straight Up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49116</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;ACLU Twofer- two tales of intolerance&lt;/strong&gt;
	The ACLU has become the spearhead of intolerance that seems to focus more on religious people then not.&#38;nbsp;&#38;nbsp; It seems odd that so much limitation of christian values happens toward Christians, particularly since religious freedom is supposed to ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>ACLU Twofer- two tales of intolerance</strong><br />
	The ACLU has become the spearhead of intolerance that seems to focus more on religious people then not.&#38;#38;nbsp;&#38;#38;nbsp; It seems odd that so much limitation of christian values happens toward Christians, particularly since religious freedom is supposed to &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CaptainRational</title>
		<link>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/comment-page-1/#comment-49117</link>
		<dc:creator>CaptainRational</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/04/10/christians-sue-for-right-to-be-intolerant/#comment-49117</guid>
		<description>T-Jeff is the closest thing we&#039;ve ever had to an atheist president, which scores him beaucoup de points with me. I would call him my personal hero if not for the slavery thing. He&#039;s responsible for some of the best parts of the Constitution, and he wasn&#039;t even around when they wrote the thing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>T-Jeff is the closest thing we&#8217;ve ever had to an atheist president, which scores him beaucoup de points with me. I would call him my personal hero if not for the slavery thing. He&#8217;s responsible for some of the best parts of the Constitution, and he wasn&#8217;t even around when they wrote the thing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

