Agreeing to Disagree

Chapman and McConnell take the reader on an illuminating journey through British and early American establishments, relevant developments in the nineteenth century, and eight decades of modern Establishment Clause interpretation. Building on a well-articulated view of the clause's animating values, they argue that a jurisprudence rooted in history will yield greater religious liberty and pluralism. Agreeing to Disagree enters the constitutional discourse at an especially critical time now that the Supreme Court has moved into the uncharted interpretive territory of 'historical practices and understandings.' * Angela C. Carmella, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law *
Chapman and McConnell provide a clear-eyed and carefully crafted defense for the first freedom stated in the Bill of Rights. Their discussion of religious accommodations is essential reading, as it can help lower the temperature and advance the political pluralism to which the nation is committed. * Abner S. Greene, author of Against Obligation: The Multiple Sources of Authority in a Liberal Democracy *
Chapman and McConnell draw on decades of their scholarly analysis and litigation experience to offer the broader public a concise and jargon-free guide to the First Amendment's religion clauses. This elegant book makes a persuasive case that we cannot interpret the Constitution's non-establishment directive without a deep historical appreciation for the type of established church the Founding generations feared. The resulting principles call for an approach grounded in pluralism rather than secularism and offer a framework for the many law and religion controversies that will almost certainly come before the Supreme Court. * Chaim Saiman, Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law *
The First Amendment prohibition on religious establishments was one of America's most original contributions to Western constitutionalism. But it has become deeply controversial in recent Supreme Court cases and culture wars. In Agreeing to Disagree, two of the nation's leading scholars of religious liberty call for a return to the American founders' cardinal insight that liberty, justice, and civic peace are best served when government remains neutral toward religion and avoids coercing or inducing any religious beliefs or practices. Judges, scholars, and interested citizens alike will find much to savor in this bracing and brilliant text. * John Witte, Jr., co-author of Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment *
Outstanding new book. * Law and Liberty *
The Kennedy Court's rejection of secularist suppression was the perfect moment for the justices to substitute this norm for its ahistorical secularist mandates. Sometimes, the antidote to bad doctrine is better doctrine, not no doctrine at all. But the Court has unfortunately chosen to proceed by dead historical reckoning. There is no better compass for that journey than Agreeing to Disagree. * Gerard Bradley, Public Discourse *