Marci Hamilton writes concerning my earlier post:

Your pre-assessment of Cardozo's conference on fundamentalism and the rule of law is, well, odd, I guess.   You don't bother to mention Esposito's keynote.  Are you aware of his work on these issues?  Or Khan's?  Mark Rozell's?  Prof. Dan Crane, who is an evangelical, is moderating one of the panels, so, just maybe, the debate is going to be scholarly and thoughtful, which, of course, is what Cardozo is known for.  I guess my question is where are you coming from?  I wasn't aware that the boundary line between fundamentalism and the rule of law already had been so politicized that such a conference would generate such a comment.  In my view, the discussion has not even started yet, though it is absolutely crucial for the future.

I've spoken (at Marci's invitation) at two Cardozo Law conferences, both of which were indeed scholarly and thoughtful and balanced, so perhaps it's a little churlish of me to criticize an event there.  I certainly agree that this a vitally important topic, and I already noted that the presenters for the upcoming conference are all excellent and thoughtful scholars.  But excellent and thoughtful scholars still have points of view, and so a conference is still better if it reflects a balance of competing views among thoughtful people on issues as to which there is room for reasonable disagreement.  I don't think that Marci challenges my conclusion that those on the program (speakers and commentators) who have a strong normative position about the role of the Christian right in politics appear to be almost all negative -- for example, on issues like inclusion of religious social services in funding programs, which is certainly an issue on which reasonable people can disagree.  This is not a matter of "politics," but of the academic benefits that come from contending points of view.  That's where I'm coming from (and I personally would defend the Christian right's legal position on some issues and not on others).  I also noted that there were some social-science analysts on the program (like Prof. Mark Rozell, whom Marci mentions) whose work is more descriptive then normative.  But I see no one on the program who strongly defends things like the faith-based initiative on a normative basis.  While Prof. Crane is an evangelical (and I don't know his views on these issues), a moderator is necessarily much more circumscribed in presenting his/her normative positions.  As for the references to Professors Esposito and Khan, who are speaking on Islam, I didn't claim anything about the subject of Islam, on which I'm relatively uneducated.  My concerns had to do with the range of views toward the legal activism of evangelicals, on which I know a lot more.

The real point is not about any particular conference, but about discussions of these matters in general.  When the normatve views on the activism of evangelicals are significantly weighted to the negative in a discussion of "fundamentalism" -- a word that, especially after 9/11, has extremely negative connotations to many (including to me) -- I think there is reason for concern that some important distinctions and countering points of view will be missed.  One such issue I mentioned before (but not the only one) is the distinction in Christianity between evangelicals, who drive several of the initiatives that speakers will criticize, and fundamentalists.  When the contributors are high-quality, as they are here, then the defenses of evangelical activism may still be brought up and seriously considered.  It's just more likely to happen if the discussion includes a strong defender of evangelical activism along with the strong critics.

Tom