<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. High Court lets city block religious monument</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/25/us-high-court-lets-city-block-religious-monument/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/25/us-high-court-lets-city-block-religious-monument/</link>
	<description>Religion, faith and ethics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 11:19:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Heneghan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/25/us-high-court-lets-city-block-religious-monument/comment-page-1/#comment-10831</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Heneghan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=4452#comment-10831</guid>
		<description>The text is available on the Supreme Court&#039;s website.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The text is available on the Supreme Court&#8217;s website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Rosaupan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/25/us-high-court-lets-city-block-religious-monument/comment-page-1/#comment-10826</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Rosaupan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=4452#comment-10826</guid>
		<description>I think reuters should have given us the full text of the decision so that we can evaluate the reasonings enunciated by the US Supreme Court or at least gave us the website where the decision was posted. Because I don&#039;t think the only issue affected here was freedom of expression but also the equal protection clause and the principle of balancing of interest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think reuters should have given us the full text of the decision so that we can evaluate the reasonings enunciated by the US Supreme Court or at least gave us the website where the decision was posted. Because I don&#8217;t think the only issue affected here was freedom of expression but also the equal protection clause and the principle of balancing of interest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
