« Conservatism, Fundamentalism And The Difference Between The Two | Main | The Cost of Sacrifice »

March 19, 2007


Rick Quinn

Hi Scott,

Great to stumble on your blog. I've thought of you and your wife from time to time, with fondness.

Just because I'm a lawyer, doesn't give me the *authority* to speak on the law, especially against a guy like Fish.

But, I can say this: Establishment Clause jurisprudence is complex, and has changed over time; but it is neither incoherent nor contradictory. Specific facts of particular cases give the Court the opportunity to reflect on its commitment to stare decisis, sometimes overruling itself. And certainly there is an interpretive continuum between so-called 'originalist' procedure and the varying forms of more pragmatic approaches to understanding the Constitution and relevant statutes. But this in no way means that interpretation is futilte, that meaning is ethereal, or that the quest for clarity is quixotic.

Blowhards, talking heads, pundits, and religionists in the public eye may all be oversimplifiers...but Fish, at least in this case, can count himself among them.

Scott Lenger

I think the greater problem with the Establishment Clause is the false understanding that one can specifically determine what ideas fall under the category of non-religious.

The comments to this entry are closed.