<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;AU&#8221; Against Alito</title>
	<link>http://rightank.com/2005/12/29/americans-united-against-alito/</link>
	<description>Unapologetic. Conservative. Commentary.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on &#8220;AU&#8221; Against Alito by: Tank</title>
		<link>http://rightank.com/2005/12/29/americans-united-against-alito/#comment-271</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://rightank.com/2005/12/29/americans-united-against-alito/#comment-271</guid>
					<description>First, the First Amendment does not require any balancing act of majority versus minority religious expression.  Moreover, the words &quot;Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]&quot; are not limited to individual expression.  If it were, the Amendment would have explicitly said so.  There is a difference between what a constitutional right &quot;ought to be&quot; and that right actually &lt;b&gt;is&lt;/b&gt;.

Second, establishment properly understood does not prohibit a school from interacting and even approving religious instruction in the schools.  In fact, the Bible was the main textbook for many early American schools (which contradicts your last point that the Founders intended to closet religious instruction in the home and church).  Moreover, the First Amendment does not prohibit state governments from creating a religious establishment.  It was only in 1940 when the Supreme Court decided to apply the First Amendment to the States--in contravention of the constitutional intent--that state governments were then &quot;prohibited&quot; from establishment.  The teaching of religion in school does not &quot;establish&quot; a religion but, for example, a tax paid directly to a church under the direction of the state would constitute establishment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, the First Amendment does not require any balancing act of majority versus minority religious expression.  Moreover, the words &#8220;Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]&#8221; are not limited to individual expression.  If it were, the Amendment would have explicitly said so.  There is a difference between what a constitutional right &#8220;ought to be&#8221; and that right actually <b>is</b>.</p>
<p>Second, establishment properly understood does not prohibit a school from interacting and even approving religious instruction in the schools.  In fact, the Bible was the main textbook for many early American schools (which contradicts your last point that the Founders intended to closet religious instruction in the home and church).  Moreover, the First Amendment does not prohibit state governments from creating a religious establishment.  It was only in 1940 when the Supreme Court decided to apply the First Amendment to the States&#8211;in contravention of the constitutional intent&#8211;that state governments were then &#8220;prohibited&#8221; from establishment.  The teaching of religion in school does not &#8220;establish&#8221; a religion but, for example, a tax paid directly to a church under the direction of the state would constitute establishment.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
 		<title>Comment on &#8220;AU&#8221; Against Alito by: Damion's Journal</title>
		<link>http://rightank.com/2005/12/29/americans-united-against-alito/#comment-269</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 20:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://rightank.com/2005/12/29/americans-united-against-alito/#comment-269</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;Tanking on the Right&lt;/strong&gt;

Rightank thrice misconstrues the nature of separationist opposition to Judge Alito....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Tanking on the Right</strong></p>
<p>Rightank thrice misconstrues the nature of separationist opposition to Judge Alito&#8230;.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
