Religion & Law

Let me hasten to add:  I begin that way in the spirit of John Prine?s wonderful ?Dear Abby, Dear Abby??with which I hope Robby, given his admirable musical tastes, is happily familiar.  No one has ever called me Mikey, and I hope no one ever does.  So please, dear Robby, no ?Dear Mikey, Dear Mikey?. 

Robby begins his response to my post by saying ?Sorry, Michael, but I don?t see what you point is.  Perhaps I?m being obtuse.?  But Robby is obviously not being serious in beginning that way:  He sees what my point is--as the rest of his post makes clear--but, predictably, disagrees with my point.

The most brilliant elaboration and defense of the position with which Robby associates himself in his post is my friend Chris Eberle?s book, Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002), which I, along with Nick Wolsterstorff, urged Cambridge to publish, and for which I?like Nick, and also like Robby?s Princeton colleague Jeff Stout?provided a dust jacket blurb, saying that the book was the new gold standard in discussions of religion in politics.

So, we have Chris and Robby (and, of course, others, including Nick Wolterstorff) on one side of the issue, and I, along with Kent Greenawalt and Andy Koppelman (and, of course, others, including, it seems, Chip Lupu), on the other side.  Reasonable scholars, all.  As I said in my post, the issues are contested; more importantly, they are contested by reasonable scholars.

 (As it happens, I was once on Robby?s side of the issue:  Under God?  Religious Faith and Liberal Democracy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).  ?I was so much older then.  I?m younger than that now.?  Apologies, again, to Robert Zimmerman.)

In giving me, years ago, a sign that now hangs in my office at Emory, my dear wife Sarah O?Leary was being sarcastic at my expense.  The sign says:  ?Be reasonable.  Think like I do!?  I take the point.  Chris?s position is certainly a reasonable one, eminently reasonable?and, as I said, brilliantly defended in his book.  Which is why I urged Cambridge to publish the book.  I?ll leave it to others to decide whether the position I (along with Kent and Andy, among others) defend is a reasonable one too.  If Robby, after reading my new book, thinks that that position?with which I know he won't agree?is not even reasonable, then, though he may not want it, I will FedEx him the sign my wife gave me.

(Alas, the magisterium sometimes cannot distinguish between disagreement and reasonable disagreement.  This is why the magisterium foolishly insists--and insists contra the sensus fidelium--that all those who would be faithful--faith-full, full of faith--Catholics should affirm the magisterial position on contraception.  John Noonan:  Why can't you just see the light??!!!)  

In any event, the strategy I had in mind in making the post to which Robby has now responded, worked.  IT WORKED!  What strategy?  My unashamedly devious--and desperate--strategy for getting someone other than a university library to purchase a copy of my new, $80 book.  Thanks so much, Robby.  I hope you won?t change your mind and simply ask the Princeton library to purchase a copy.