Religious Legal Theory Conference Postscript

We've just finished up the annual (we can say that now) Religious Legal Theory conference over here at St. John's.  The two keynoters, Steves Smith and Shiffrin (or as Dean Simons had it, "morning Steve" and "afternoon Steve" -- I think that should stick), delivered wonderful papers on standing and the "hard" and "soft" Constitution, and the relationship between theology and constitutional law.  The panels I attended were terrific -- chock full of new thoughts and young blood.  The panel I moderated -- I suppose the most 'traditional' of the bunch, in that it was devoted to American Religion Clause questions -- was comprised of some real talent: John Inazu on assembly; Rick Esenberg on neutrality; Michael Helfand on religious arbitration (see also the new lawsuit filed just today trying to stop Oklahoma's proposed state constitutional amendment dealing with this subject); and Nelson Tebbe with an elegant paper on the constitutional status of nonbelievers.   And I haven't even talked about Paul Horwitz doing his agnostic waltz, Ian Bartrum with a cogent piece on non-public reasons, Zach Calo on law and the secular, Joel Nichols on civil obedience and disobedience in the New Testament, Haider Hamoudi on juristic institutions in Iraq, a gaggle of international comparativists on religious liberty in Nigeria, Japan, Canada, and Italy, and many, many other excellent presentations.

Look out for the next installment of this conference way over at Pepperdine next year (Bob Cochran to lead the way).