<?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: 3rd Circuit: School District&#8217;s exclusion of religious holiday music is &#8220;reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2009/11/25/3rd-circuit-school-districts-exclusion-of-religious-holiday-music-is-reasonably-related-to-legitimate-pedagogical-concerns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2009/11/25/3rd-circuit-school-districts-exclusion-of-religious-holiday-music-is-reasonably-related-to-legitimate-pedagogical-concerns/</link>
	<description>news from the frontlines of the culture war</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:45:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Laffey</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2009/11/25/3rd-circuit-school-districts-exclusion-of-religious-holiday-music-is-reasonably-related-to-legitimate-pedagogical-concerns/comment-page-1/#comment-82706</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Laffey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=43529#comment-82706</guid>
		<description>It means that while Schools can have religous music in their Holiday pograms&quot; they do not have to.
Most school administrators are not anti religion they are anti- getting sued and anti- controversey. They will see this as a way to avoid problems.  If we do not do religous songs we can not be sued (even though they can not be sued for having them either).  Since the the wheel with the loudest squeak gets the grease The parents who object to this new policy need to make way more noise then the intolerant person who objected to a medley of religous Christmas songs.
I would also suggest they run a slate of candidates for the School Board. That will put the fear of God (pun intended) into the administrators and the current Board.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It means that while Schools can have religous music in their Holiday pograms&#8221; they do not have to.<br />
Most school administrators are not anti religion they are anti- getting sued and anti- controversey. They will see this as a way to avoid problems.  If we do not do religous songs we can not be sued (even though they can not be sued for having them either).  Since the the wheel with the loudest squeak gets the grease The parents who object to this new policy need to make way more noise then the intolerant person who objected to a medley of religous Christmas songs.<br />
I would also suggest they run a slate of candidates for the School Board. That will put the fear of God (pun intended) into the administrators and the current Board.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Williams</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2009/11/25/3rd-circuit-school-districts-exclusion-of-religious-holiday-music-is-reasonably-related-to-legitimate-pedagogical-concerns/comment-page-1/#comment-82263</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:48:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=43529#comment-82263</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure that I completely understand what this ruling means.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure that I completely understand what this ruling means.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
