<?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: Poverty’s elephant in the room</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/10/12/povertys-elephant-in-the-room/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/10/12/povertys-elephant-in-the-room/</link>
	<description>News and views on Utah public policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 15:50:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duane</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/10/12/povertys-elephant-in-the-room/#comment-1980</link>
		<dc:creator>Duane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3971#comment-1980</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First, the author did not advocate involvement of any church in government activity. So your comment is a stupid red herring.

Second, he DID suggest that government &quot;provide room for religious organizations to pursue their charitable missions WITHOUT interference.&quot;  That does not mean church runs government welfare, it means government gets the heck out of the way.

Third, the author of the phrase &quot;separation of church and state&quot; intended that church be protected from government interference (try reading the quote in context) NOT that government would be protected from religion.  Indeed, most of the people who signed the Constitution intended religion to influence public life, but they did not want one church to be favored or established as the &quot;state church&quot; like the Church of England.

Ever hear of actually studying history?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, the author did not advocate involvement of any church in government activity. So your comment is a stupid red herring.</p>
<p>Second, he DID suggest that government &#8220;provide room for religious organizations to pursue their charitable missions WITHOUT interference.&#8221;  That does not mean church runs government welfare, it means government gets the heck out of the way.</p>
<p>Third, the author of the phrase &#8220;separation of church and state&#8221; intended that church be protected from government interference (try reading the quote in context) NOT that government would be protected from religion.  Indeed, most of the people who signed the Constitution intended religion to influence public life, but they did not want one church to be favored or established as the &#8220;state church&#8221; like the Church of England.</p>
<p>Ever hear of actually studying history?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rmwarnick</title>
		<link>http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/10/12/povertys-elephant-in-the-room/#comment-1979</link>
		<dc:creator>rmwarnick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=3971#comment-1979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Um, ever hear of the separation of church and state?  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, ever hear of the separation of church and state?  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
