Religion, Balance, and the AALS

Yesterday, here at the AALS annual meeting, I sat in on a program sponsored called "workshop on a search for balance in the whirlwind of law school."  In the afternoon, one of the seven "concurrent sessions" (in addition to "affective", "contemplative practices", and "connection to purpose") was "religion in law school". 

Now, I suppose this is progress:  It is a good thing that the AALS is now willing, officially, to acknowledge that religion -- like "contemplative practices" --  might, for some people, function as a useful coping mechanism in law school.  And, the program speakers I heard (Ellen Pryor, Samuel Levine, Bob Cochran) were interesting and informative. 

What would be *real* progress, though, would be for the AALS to welcome the enterprise of those of us who think that the content of our thinking *about* law is (and long has been) and should be shaped and informed by religious teachings and traditions.

I also noticed, in the materials handed out by one of the speakers -- the chaplain at one of the law schools sponsored by the Society of Jesus -- a copy of the text that, I gather, is provided to students, to explain the chaplain's role and activities.  That text included this (in my view) regrettable language (I'm paraphrasing):  "The chaplain's role is not to pass judgment on students or their levels of faith commitment, nor should the presence of the chaplain be taken as an endorsement of efforts to use religious faith to exclude others."  Sigh.  I recognize that, in the real world, such a disclaimer might be useful, if not necessary, for creating some room for the chaplain to work.  Still, why -- at a law school affiliated with the Society of Jesus -- should it fall on the chaplain to justify his or her position and work by issuing such assurances?  Don't such disclaimers validate, or implicitly endorse, frustratingly persistent prejudices or ignorance about religion and faith?