Well, then, to be fair, perhaps only time will tell if Scalia, like Cotton Mather, changes his tune, parts of his message, and even his unhappiness. Mather eventually apologized for what he had caused by his previously entrenched fixated view of the role of religion in government, of government in religion, and of both in the lives of citizens, residents, and visitors. What turned Mather was a series of events inconsistent with his reasoning, beliefs, and perspective. Are things like that in the offing?
I would guess that at the moment, there is much disappointment among those who expected decisions from an allegedly conservative-leaning Court very different from the ones that were issued (an article to that effect is on the front page of today's Philadelphia Inquirer, and I don't recall if it was a wire services story that would have been picked up elsewhere). Frustration sometimes evidences itself in jeremiads and jihads. Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/27/03 02:23PM >>> Mark Graber writes: Scalia's seem a call for a jeremiad. Once a term perhaps. But not two a week. Scalia's opinion IS a "jeremiad," a sermon about the decline (and potentially baleful future) awaiting the community that has strayed from its foundations (usually divine, given that the classic jeremiads were delivered by such as Cotton Mather). So does Mark actually mean to use the word "jihad"? This would, after all, be appropriate for those who believe they are involved in a kulturkampf. sandy
