<?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: The fine texture: A response to Smith</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/03/09/the-fine-texture-a-response-to-smith/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/03/09/the-fine-texture-a-response-to-smith/</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:07:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Rowe</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/03/09/the-fine-texture-a-response-to-smith/comment-page-1/#comment-5718</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Rowe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=1354#comment-5718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;i&gt;And note that Smith skips over the fact, demonstrated &lt;b&gt;incontrovertibly&lt;/b&gt; by Brian Tierney and Charles Reid, that in the canon laws of the twelfth century there was already a full-blown conceptual recognition of natural rights. Had those canon lawyers “absorbed the atomistic individualism of modern liberalism”?&lt;/i&gt;  [Bold mine.]

Nope.  Sorry, the word &quot;incontrovertibly&quot; is an error.  The verdict is still out on Tierney&#039;s claim.  Robert Kraynak of Colgate for one disputes Tierney&#039;s thesis.  And he&#039;s not alone.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>And note that Smith skips over the fact, demonstrated <b>incontrovertibly</b> by Brian Tierney and Charles Reid, that in the canon laws of the twelfth century there was already a full-blown conceptual recognition of natural rights. Had those canon lawyers “absorbed the atomistic individualism of modern liberalism”?</i>  [Bold mine.]</p>
<p>Nope.  Sorry, the word &#8220;incontrovertibly&#8221; is an error.  The verdict is still out on Tierney&#8217;s claim.  Robert Kraynak of Colgate for one disputes Tierney&#8217;s thesis.  And he&#8217;s not alone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
