Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines for civility among scholars, saying that academic exchanges should be set forth with dignity, courtesy, and temperateness of language. I agree wholeheartedly with these principles, and I will not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind to Professor Laycock\u27s review. Tone is much less important than having a frank exchange of views. It is well known that Professor Laycock and I have very different perspectives on the proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. His review and my response should be an opportunity for us to explore our intellectual differences. In this brief response, I will focus on the two most important theor...
This essay establishes, first, the professional aspects of disclosure. Second, it defines the equipo...
Authors rarely have the opportunity to respond to their reviewers in the same issue in which the rev...
In two recent papers, Brian Leiter argues that there is no good reason for law to single out religio...
Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines...
I recently reviewed God vs. the Gavel by Professor Marci Hamilton, and she published a brief respons...
You know you’ve made it, scholarly-wise speaking, when a major publishing house and a preeminent uni...
Professor Brilmayer responds to the commentaries of Professors Laycock, Tushnet, and George
Blog post, “The Political Irresponsibility of Douglas Laycock“ discusses politics, theology and the ...
I owe a great debt to Professors Wall, Darwall, and Green for their willingness to challenge, develo...
In her paper Professor Sullivan sets forth an admirable ideal: that we in the law should talk about ...
This paper is a short response to an address, “And I Don’t Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality in ...
Blog post, “The Response by Professor Freeman“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation ...
Modern American society is pervasively regulated. It is also religiously diverse to a degree that is...
The discussion of law and religion can take various forms. One form is conceptual: What is religion?...
Most of the literature of jurisprudence, to paraphrase William James, is tedious, not as hard subjec...
This essay establishes, first, the professional aspects of disclosure. Second, it defines the equipo...
Authors rarely have the opportunity to respond to their reviewers in the same issue in which the rev...
In two recent papers, Brian Leiter argues that there is no good reason for law to single out religio...
Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines...
I recently reviewed God vs. the Gavel by Professor Marci Hamilton, and she published a brief respons...
You know you’ve made it, scholarly-wise speaking, when a major publishing house and a preeminent uni...
Professor Brilmayer responds to the commentaries of Professors Laycock, Tushnet, and George
Blog post, “The Political Irresponsibility of Douglas Laycock“ discusses politics, theology and the ...
I owe a great debt to Professors Wall, Darwall, and Green for their willingness to challenge, develo...
In her paper Professor Sullivan sets forth an admirable ideal: that we in the law should talk about ...
This paper is a short response to an address, “And I Don’t Care What It Is: Religious Neutrality in ...
Blog post, “The Response by Professor Freeman“ discusses politics, theology and the law in relation ...
Modern American society is pervasively regulated. It is also religiously diverse to a degree that is...
The discussion of law and religion can take various forms. One form is conceptual: What is religion?...
Most of the literature of jurisprudence, to paraphrase William James, is tedious, not as hard subjec...
This essay establishes, first, the professional aspects of disclosure. Second, it defines the equipo...
Authors rarely have the opportunity to respond to their reviewers in the same issue in which the rev...
In two recent papers, Brian Leiter argues that there is no good reason for law to single out religio...