--------------040500010203020204030901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Todd Burch wrote:
> <snip>Free religous exercise does not 
> mean "free only on the condition that it does not offend some vocal 
> minority".  It means free!</snip>
>
> <snip>I don't think the state is doing that here in the US.  As a matter of 
> fact, they are doing the opposite.  They are squelching religous 
> expression, because Group "ABC" might offend Group "DEF".</snip>
>
>   
> <snip>
> I don't agree the name is clever or appropriate.
>
> I wanted to make a point that Tom could have 
> picked a better name. 
> </snip>
>
>   
So, let me get this straight.  You apparently want to squelch Tom's
freedom to name *his* application anything *he* wants because you choose
to let the name offend you, but think it's perfectly appropriate to use
taxpayer funds to advance *your* personal superstitious beliefs,
regardless of whether said taxpayers find your beliefs offensive.  How
wonderfully hypocritical.

--------------040500010203020204030901--